Forum menu
Tubeless tyres seem like a pain to setup, same for internal cables.
maybe, but a bit of faff at home (or having your LBS do it) are totally worth it for the almost total lack of punctures I now enjoy
11/12/13 Speed cassettes/rear mechs are hugely expensive, and need more precision when setting up.
yes they are more expensive, I'm not sure they need any more faff setting up once you've got your eye in to how to do it though
Single chainrings don’t really add any benefits over a triple setup, meaning you have to ride slowly on the bits inbetween trails.
define riding slowly? To you maybe, for other folk not so much, I think we do ourselves a disservice by thinking that the only people that should be riding MTB are those folk who're determined to 'just' go faster and faster
Slack geometry may make the bike more fun to ride, but again slows the bike down on the non trail stuff.
I'm not sure they do, My slack-ish HT a Scandal is just as much fun to ride on the TPT as it is elsewhere, and that's pan flat
Essentially if MTBs stayed how they were, gravel bikes wouldn’t exist.
And the sorts of riding that modern geometry bikes are capable of and have opened up to the average punter would be limited. And I'm not convinced that old MTB = New gravel bike is a good comparison.
pros and cons in everything really.
I’m intrigued why you think single chainrings are better than double/triples though, same with internal cables? Just a neatness thing?
Single chain rings, as per previous poster, have led to suspension and clearance changes. Both great things in my opinion. Part of the reason why 29ers have become so capable too. Also less faff having just a rear mech, no dropped chains or chain suck and no pointless overlap of gears. I rarely used a fair percentage of the gears when running doubles and triples.
I actually prefer external routing for brake hoses. Much easier to deal with. Prefer internal for the dropper and I’m pretty ambivalent about the gear cable.
maybe, but a bit of faff at home (or having your LBS do it) are totally worth it for the almost total lack of punctures I now enjoy
I don't really ever get any punctures, maybe 1 a year - I run slime tubes which I guess is kinda tubeless with a bit more weight but without the faff
Re: The cost - I honestly don't think I could enjoy MTBing if Cassettes / Rear Mechs were costing me £100-£200 a time - maybe a sign of me being tight though!
One factor which probably influences my view on more modern bikes is the increase in cost of components over the last few years - you used to be able to easily get a full XT hardtail for under a grand. I'm sure suspension has improved over the years though.
</old man at 38>
I’m intrigued why you think single chainrings are better than double/triples though, same with internal cables? Just a neatness thing?
I am so over dropped chains. Friends and I had been running a single ring since the late 90s up until I took a break from riding in about 2005. Came back 11 years later, to find tech has caught up with the riders. No longer did we suffer chains jumping off when you tried to put the power down after a rough section, no more jamming of cranks and gouged chainstays in the slop. It was brilliant!
I've lost a chain once in the last 5 years, I've never found myself wanting for gears and as an aside I've had 2 occasions where I've had punctures that didn't seal themselves. Modern changes are brilliant for me.
It may not work for you, which is great, there are other options.
Also, that 8 speed stuff being cheap? It's not because it's 8 speed, it's because it's several generations old, so it's being sold off as everyone wants to use single rings and 11/12spd, as they're better suited to the majority of riders!
I guess I like the simplicity and cost of running tubes, 8 speed, external cables, triple rings.. easy and very cheap to maintain. Bought a load of SRAM 8 speed cassettes from Wiggle for £7 each a couple of months back, chains are £7-8, Rear Mechs approximately £20.
I’m intrigued why you think single chainrings are better than double/triples though, same with internal cables? Just a neatness thing?
buying 8 spd stuff now, yes its cheap. I've got a lovely, perfectly functioning iphone8 for the same reason. Its as good as when it came out. Newer versions are better and more expensive.
Most of these dont apply to hardtails, but look at any full suss these days. there is nowhere to mount a front mech and multiple chainrings, and I dont just mean its missing a hole for a bolt. The main pivot is (often) right behind the chainring, that bit can now be stiffer. Antisquat etc can now be based around a single ring. Chainstays are wide enough that they just clear a single 34/36 ring.
For all bikes, narrow wide rings aid chain retention, and if that isnt enough for your riding, chainguides are a lot simpler, lighter, and drag free compared to the monstrosities that had to keep chains on a multi ring bike.
having 10/11/12 actually distinct gears that are selected in a linear manner with just 2 controls is excellent. as is leving your left thumb free for droppers, suspension lockouts.
I think I agree with you on the cables... I think. Both my bikes are external.
A cleaner look + easier to wash Vs easier to maintain is the trade off.
I don’t really ever get any punctures, maybe 1 a year
Haven't had to deal with a puncture on tubeless for probably 5-6 years now, and honestly (really hand-on-heart) it's not a faff, did two tyres last night, and the struggle was to get the old (wire-beaded) tyres off! Not denying stuff is pricey, but an 11speed SLX cassette is £70.00 and Deore less than that, and the price of 12 speed will come down as well. I'm not sure it was all that easy to get an full XT HT for under a grand though...that sounds like rose tinted specs to me! You might have been able to get a bike with XT parts on it for under a grand though, but the cost saving would've been somewhere.
A single chainring set up is much easier to use for inexperienced riders and kids. My narrow wide ring has lasted 2500km approximately and probably could have lasted a bit longer but I decided to replace it along with the chain and cassette. It seems to me that a single ring set up causes less wear and tear.
Internal routing is about the only modern trend I'd reverse.
Done well its additional faff, done badly its a total pain in the arse. I have to remove my bottom bracket to change the rear brake!
I'm not reading further an article that talks about discs being new technology.
IMO, part of the popularity of gravel and touring bikes again is down to too much tech and too much focus on super gnarly performance.
I’m not reading further an article that talks about discs being new technology.
Discs are undoubtedly an improvement, I'm just left with the impression that many modern innovations offer marginal improvement, and are really excuses to roll out new standards to keep us buying new bikes and bits. Recognise I'm probably in the minority though.
I’m not sure it was all that easy to get an full XT HT for under a grand though…that sounds like rose tinted specs to me!
No doubt someone will be along to correct me, but I'm sure Merlin, Planet X etc used to sell full XT for a grand?!
IMO, part of the popularity of gravel and touring bikes again is down to too much tech and too much focus on super gnarly performance.
This. If old school XC bikes, triple rings, lock out 80-100mm forks were still popular then I don't think many people would be looking to buy a gravel bike as well.
Are 2021 bikes better than 25 years ago?
Definitely.
Are they better than 5 years ago?
Not massively.
Are they significantly more expensive than 5 years ago?
Demonstratively.
IMO, part of the popularity of gravel and touring bikes again is down to too much tech and too much focus on super gnarly performance.
too much tech, or just incorrectly applied for the proposed usage?
A gravel bike is going to have (for exapmle) carbon forks derived from competitive road cycling, 1x groupset from MTB, hydro-dropbar-brakes from CX (once the UCI relented); tubeless tyres from the MTB world, with widths that the rando/tour/audaxers popularised.
Just because a 180mm travel enduromachine and a 7kg crit bike are the forefront of some measurable statistic doesn't mean that anything in between hasn't also benefitted from the same technology.
This. If old school XC bikes, triple rings, lock out 80-100mm forks were still popular then I don’t think many people would be looking to buy a gravel bike as well.
the american big three, plus scott, plus all the german mail order brands make such a bike. Except for the triple. 34:10 on a 29er gets you over 20mph anyway, how often are you wanting to/able to do more than this
This. If old school XC bikes, triple rings, lock out 80-100mm forks were still popular then I don’t think many people would be looking to buy a gravel bike as well.
What's the fascination with triples? 2x transmissions arrived over 2 decades ago, and were argued about back then. (Supporters of triples lost the argument big time*.)
*Because triples are pointless unless you just want to boast about how many gears you have.
and are really excuses to roll out new standards to keep us buying new bikes and bits.
This argument gets rolled out all the time and TBH, this is the model that every manufacturer has been working to for decades now, it's the same reason the wheels on your Focus won't fit on a Mk1 Escort. It's the same reason that 1970's bikes are difficult to restore...because (wait for it) you can't get the Raleigh specific BB for your Raleigh bike (because they used a proprietary thread size) or the seat-pin that went into a 1970 Bianchi, but not a 1972 version of the same bike.
What’s the fascination with triples?
I know! loads of the gears are redundant/same/not available due to chain angles, and the front mech gets in the way of a decent suspension design. All that's happened is that they've just move the gears you do need to a different place. People seem to just loose their minds!
Yep, loads of it if you want to look. Have a search around on YouTube and see people testing old versus new using same power.
Ok, so assume I'm a lazy bastard who can't be bothered to trawl through YT to find the evidence you claim is there; could you point me in the right direction please? Just curious, is all.
“Just curious, is all.”
Alternatively you could just have a think about professional XC, Enduro and DH racing. Do you honestly believe that all the companies have colluded to put their racers on bikes which are slower than older bikes, so they can sell new stuff?
Ok, so assume I’m a lazy bastard who can’t be bothered to trawl through YT to find the evidence you claim is there; could you point me in the right direction please? Just curious, is all.
If you are that curious you will go and search for it, if you are not you won't.
Or I can save you the time and tell you that a current bike versus a bike from 20 years ago is faster and there is a lot of evidence to back that up.
Do you honestly believe that all the companies have colluded to put their racers on bikes which are slower than older bikes, so they can sell new stuff?
All their bikes are heavier, so they must be slower. Simple Physics, I’ve heard.
Or I can save you the time and tell you that a current bike versus a bike from 20 years ago is faster and there is a lot of evidence to back that up
So; provide the evidence then. If it's there, as you claim, then it won't be difficult for you, will it?
Simple Physics, I’ve heard.
😉 Nice. I like that.
I’m not reading further an article that talks about discs being new technology.
It's a podcast where he talks to an audience where some among them may be fairly new to discs - relatively speaking, when touring bikes have had rim brakes for 70+ years and most tourers don't buy new bikes every 2-3 years. It's undoubtedly a bit tongue in cheek too. He's tested bikes for magazines enough times. I hear his podcasts at the opposite end of the scale to any high-fiving trash-talking banter you might get on a Grrrrr-avel Racing podcast (if there are any, none that I've heard, just making some sort of point)
If we could all give things a little more time we might see a wider view on things? Or, don't give it any time but equally don't judge or have an opinion on it?
then it won’t be difficult for you, will it?
or you either, will it?
I'm not the one making any claims though. So I have nothing to 'prove'.
“ I’m not the one making any claims though. So I have nothing to ‘prove’.”
Really? It seems like you’re claiming that everyone is wrong and newer bikes aren’t faster?
Clearly we’re all wrong and short steep 26” bikes are better and that’s why they’re used for everything from the Tour Divide to WC DH nowadays.
So I have nothing to ‘prove’.
No one has. You can, y'know, just take it a face value, or just dismiss it. no-one has to "win"
20 years ago I bought an Orange E6 for £1250. It had v brakes and the pads could wear out on one wet ride and rims might last a year. The forks would seize after one wet ride and the tyres were rubbish in all weathers. It was pretty light but terrifying when pointed downhill. T
22 years ago I bought an orange mrXC. I still have it. It has hope disks, that were fine. Sid 100s that have a lack of adjustability, and are fairly noodley, but have never seized or been serviced. The tyres are pretty rubbish, and its a challenge down a hill, but not terrifying. 25lbs for 100mm front and rear still seems competative.
for trail riding, my modern 29er makes mincemeat of it, but for riding along the south downs way, the orange probably still has the edge. Modern bikes are better at modern trail riding, I'm not sure they're better at everything.
They are more expensive at the top end though. My bike was full bling (xtr, chris king, etc) and was £3k. That's about £5.5k now. I'm sure you can get a bike that rides better for £5.5k, but a top end bike is now double that. I guess as we've all got older and richer, the industry has kept up
I guess I like the simplicity and cost of running tubes, 8 speed, external cables, triple rings.. easy and very cheap to maintain.
Don't be dazzled by tech. Simple bikes have always been available. Tbh a 1x setup is simpler than a 2 or 3x because there are fewer things. You don't have to adjust a front mech or replace a front mech cable etc.
Re internal routing - I have discovered a huge bonus - my new carbon road bike does not need any frame protection because the cables come out of the frame at the right angles. So more of a faff to fit but less faff with trying to arrange the protection stickers.
Not listened to it yet, but looking forward to it.
But it's probably not aimed at a MTB audience who now ride terrain unthinkable 20years ago.
Jack Thurston is a very experienced 'gentlemanly' tourer and commuter. If you put it in those contexts then there's a lot of modern developments that aren't particularly an advantage for touring. Especially when you're stuck and the only shop doubles as the local iron monger!
All partly depends on the kind of riding you're doing.
So; provide the evidence then. If it’s there, as you claim, then it won’t be difficult for you, will it?
Certainly wouldn't be difficult.
Will I be doing it for you, and wasting my own time - not a chance.
22 years ago I bought an orange mrXC. I still have it. It has hope disks, that were fine. Sid 100s that have a lack of adjustability, and are fairly noodley, but have never seized or been serviced. The tyres are pretty rubbish, and its a challenge down a hill, but not terrifying. 25lbs for 100mm front and rear still seems competative.
Modern equivalent could be something like a Canyon Lux CF 7 which costs under £4K and weighs 26lb. I would put a lot of money of it being faster than your Orange on any terrain you want to ride on.
I remember riding with a group in the Alps about 15 years ago. Around 8 of us with typical "trail" bikes of the day, not doing the real big jumps etc but still using the lifts to string together some nice downhills. Literally we had at least one bike out of action every single day because something was broken. Forks, wheels, tyres, brakes, even a frame; you name it.
These days I can ride a couple of weeks in the Alps on my modern trail bike and not even get a flat tyre.
So no, modern bikes are not rubbish.
Literally we had at least one bike out of action every single day because something was broken. Forks, wheels, tyres, brakes, even a frame; you name it
That sounds exactly like my first international trips from the early to mid 2000's. It was even an accomplishment to get a whole group around a trail centre without a major breakdown.
My current bike has been on trips to the Alps where I've done a months worth of DH every day for weeks on end. I haven't broken anything since I built it. All I've bought is tyres and pads.
Even the music that should accompany this thread is from 1993!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R07atGD2sI4
And to further my comparison between the old Orange Mr XC and a new Canyon Lux CF 7.
Just look at them and tell me the modern bike is not better than the old one and which one you would rather ride
I would put a lot of money of it being faster than your Orange on any terrain you want to ride on.
All well and good if speed is your aim.
I'm in it for the giggles. I was having a few riding a fully rigid, 700x38mm tyred bike yesterday.
I do think modern bikes are better - smoother gears, better suspension, stronger brakes, much better tyres, nicer positioning, stronger. Faster, yes.
However, 'character' can be fun. I'm fed up of the silly multiple standards and the amount of maintenance/lack of long term durability of suspension bits.
I’m in it for the giggles. I was having a few riding a fully rigid
So am I, which is why I ride a single speed rigid bike as my only bike. Nothing to do with speed.
I’m fed up of the silly multiple standards and the amount of maintenance/lack of long term durability of suspension bits.
Not a problem for me, see above. Pick the good bits, don't pick the bad bits/bits you don't like.
Doesn't discount that on the whole a modern bike is better than an older bike for riding over any given terrain. If you don't like modern standards then just ride an od bike but don't pretend it is a better bike for actually riding (which is the bit I am interested in)
I’m fed up of the silly multiple standards
This is never going to go away, I'd make your peace with it.
“ I’m fed up of the silly multiple standards”
I remember my Dad complaining about this issue with MTBs in about 1990!
I've said this before, but I used to have a 2007 Kona Heihei which I thought was brilliant. I got rid when I realised how much worse it was that my 29er on rough ground. Several years later I borrowed my mates 2005 Kula and it was absolutely awful on any descent. The front wheel was under my chest, which meant it was doing all the work in corners and if it were to slip I'd be on my face.
Awful but very familiar. I'd forgotten that preventing myself going OTB or trying to conrber without the front wheel washing out was the main focus on descents when I started MTBing in the 90s.
I think the problem for me is what constitutes "modern" nothing I own is brand new, pretty much all of my bikes are about 5 years or more behind what is currently in the shops.
Maybe having the odd thing like tubeless tyres, using 1x or droppers means I'm not completely out of touch, but I'm sure plenty of you wouldn't touch my bikes with somebody else's.
But "Modern" bikes viewed through the lens of "not quite modern" bikes don't seem quite so advanced really, they generally just have an extra click on the rear shifter and a degree less on the head tube to warrant triple the asking price.
I keep an interested eye on what what's being sold by the industry every year and I think the point made towards the beginning of that podcast holds some water, perhaps the industry is at the "thin end of the wedge" there's not all that much change year on year for Road, MTB and now Gravel bikes really. And it's almost all at the top end of spend. What people seem to mean by "modern" is more often than not "top of top end, Megabucks toys" eventually those too run out of new-shineyness and the company's pushing them have to default to a mini price-point war...
TBH I'm more interested in middle to bottom end bikes and kit. 12 speed, leccy magic AXS/Di2 is all well and good but, it's so far out of my (sensible, not divorced) financial reach today as to seem like fiction sometimes...
For those of us looking more at the Alivio/Deore/SLX/X5/NX/SX/GRX400/105/tiagra/sora/Rival/Apex levels of kit (or even cheaper) things are actually pretty sweet (IMO). Yes some of these groups are essentially providing the same levels of function that was available a decade or more ago, others have some slightly more 'current' features, but generally there's good choices in terms of affordable components, durability and function...
Someone asserted that "we're being sold £5000 bikes..." earlier in this thread, the truth is we're not all being sold £5k+ bikes. And I think the diminishing returns and evaporation of "residual value" for those more expensive bikes, often makes them a terrible choice for a lot of people...
Are modern (current, bleeding edge and expensive) bikes rubbish?
I don't think so, they seem pretty nice when viewed from the cheap seats, I'll let you know when I catch up in another half decade or so...
Really? It seems like you’re claiming that everyone is wrong and newer bikes aren’t faster?
Where have I claimed that 'everyone is wrong' Where have I claimed 'newer bikes are faster'? Think what you like, but please don't make stuff up.
Certainly wouldn’t be difficult.
Will I be doing it for you, and wasting my own time – not a chance.
So- you're not actually providing any evidence to back up your claim then. Look; it's fine, I'm not disputing that newer bikes aren't 'better'. All I'm asking for, as someone interested in actually buying a new bike, is some sort of indication that these improvements are measurable. Helping educate someone isn't 'wasting time'. It's just being helpful.
Mid to low end bikes are amazing these days. Back in the day there was so much rubbish around that we were always striving for more expensive kit. My Fire Mountain in 1992 was £450, that's £952 today. It was nearly 30 lbs in weight.
For £1,100 now you could get a Calibre Bossnut which is vastly better in every way. Never mind the more capable geometry* and disc brakes and whatnot, but you also get FULL suspension (back in 1992 forks alone would have added another £300) which clearly adds far more to what you can achieve (and before you accuse me of skills-compensator blablabla my most ridden MTB now is fully rigid).
I mean yes, I was young then, things were exciting, but it's hard to objectively call the older bike better. And it's not like it was some reliable workhorse. By the time I got rid of it the rims had already been replaced; I changed the brakes in an effort to get stopping power; the rear mech was so floppy that it started to click on the next gear if I leant over too much in a corner; I'd had to replace both rims; the headset was an absolute notchy rusty mess, I had to regularly clean and re-grease hubs - and I only owned it two years. And I only rode it once a week! It was an entry level MTB.
I could write war and peace about this, but i would put it simpler over my 30 years with MTBs, back in the 90s and 2000s, i found that bikes were hit and miss, some good, some bad, be that down to shocks or kit, or geometry, you could find one that worked well, or one that struggled, i had that issue a few times.
Nowadays i just don't really see a 'bad' bike, they are all R&D'd well, modelled, put together with the appropriate shock and kit to suit their required market, there is also way more choice in the market, which again drives up the quality.
I just find anyone saying things like 'modern bikes are rubbish' are doing it to start a discussion (or argument!), rather than actually having any evidence. We can all put on our rose tinted glasses and reminisce about the old days, but as much as i loved older bikes, i would have much preferred my current ones if i could have had them back then!